I'd like to note the irony that I found this interesting and want to comment on it, but don't want to drill down on anything you don't agree is an important point :)
Really though, I experienced this as a kid when I had a larger conversational memory "stack" than my friends. There tend to be more topics "in play" for me than for my conversational partners, which made it seem like I was reluctant to let the conversation move forwards.
As time went on, I had to learn how to let things go more, which helped me out a lot when I started having larger conversations, as your point will almost certainly drift by before you get a chance to share it.
Yes! Letting go is key to conversational skill.
What you describe is letting go of certain topics that you would like to be discussed further, and I think that's extremely valuable.
The other kind of letting go is letting go of the urge to nitpick and apply excessive nuance to every little point no matter how relevant to a context.
I generally agree but also find that people also accuse people of nitpicking or excessive nuance when trying to defend ideas that feel true but are logically weak.
I find the critical distinction between rigor and nitpicking to be whether the detail being argued about is critical to the foundation of any of an argument's premises.
Excellent point. I agree that it's hard to develop a general rule about nitpicking versus pertinent rigour. It is an "I know it when I see it" sort of thing.
Usually, the way this plays out for me is that if my interlocutor is nitpicking, I would feel misunderstood. Meanwhile, if my interlocutor applies genuine rigour to my premises, I would feel enlightened.
In this post, Scott Alexander makes a good case for correcting people, but he also provides a few guidelines for determining what counts as nitpicking and what counts as rigor. Here are his caveats:
Despite my attempt to summarize his post, it's worth reading in its entirety.
During particular discussions, I observed my interlocutors—and sometimes myself—applying excessive nuance to points that don't help us move further towards a mutual understanding or new insights.
Minor feedback: try to simplify that sentence, or break it up into smaller pieces. It seems, ironically, that that sentence may have too much nuance.
Good article otherwise, and I enjoyed reading.
Other commenters have added reasonable caveats for situations in which it's okay for the conversation stack to grow tall, but I'll add a buttress to your main point: when debating something important outside of rationalist circles, the stack size should be limited to 1, with 2 being a privilege. Only debate one point at a time, and choose the point that's easiest to verify or falsify.
On YouTube, Reddit, Substack, and face-to-face, I've found that debating multiple points before the first point has been resolved usually results in continuously-shifting goalposts, or the interlocutor ignoring whatever I've said about one point to focus exclusively on the point where my response seems weakest.
I'll emphasize that I consider this to be especially important when debating non-rationalists, because their pride encourages them to change subjects to show that they're right about "the thing that actually matters", and because the soldier mindset discourages them from acknowledging your strongest points.
This standard might sound harsh, and it does kill some conversations quickly, but I think that's preferable to writing a comprehensive reply that accounts for all of their explicit and implicit claims, only for none of them to be acknowledged. In both cases, nobody is convinced of anything--but in the first case, at least I didn't waste an hour or more.
When debating with rationalists, I'm much more lenient about discussing two or three points concurrently, because I trust that 1) they'll give credit where it's due, and 2) even if they appear to have changed the subject, they're investigating a crux, and they plan to backtrack to the original point before long.
I'm not sure how to use this advice/observation. I think the purposes for discussion, style and knowledge of participants, and social expectations of that particular setting vary pretty widely, and other than "make the implicit explicit" in terms of getting what you want from the interaction, there's too much existing nuance to generalize advice like this.
There are specific conversations where allowing the conversation to meander and allowing the conversational stack to grow and blend are OK.
I think this exemplifies my point. Except I think it's the majority of conversations, and in my experience, the default. The exceptions are conversations explicitly trying to establish agreement on some topic or some other agreed purpose.
Interesting perspective, I’m curious if you’re specifically referring to rationalist (and, more generally, truth-seeking) conversations and debates when you describe the high/low status descriptions for conversationalists. I ask as I have an alternative viewpoint to consider outside of rationalist circles.
I actually see what you’re describing, broadly summarised as I see it as changing topics and going off on tangents, as a highly valued social skill when the goal is to quickly find topics of mutual interest rather than to go deep on a subject to debate and find truth. I have seen this described as “conversation scaffolding” (can’t recall source) and “the sprinkler technique” (think this was Dale Carnegie’s “How to win friends and influence people”). Given the prevalence of this tactical approach (for my circles in the US and UK), I wonder if an alternative read on what you’re seeing is that you are seeking truth but your conversation partner is seeking connection. Personally, I’m rarely operating in rationalist circles so I see more of this conversation style than truth seeking, and that’s why this different view was so salient to me. Curious to hear your thoughts.
Hey, thanks for sharing your perspective. This is not particular to rationalist communities. I've experienced this with non-rationalist social circles.
I've added the following paragraph to the post to address your point:
Another context in which exploring many topics is desirable is when getting to know someone new. In this context, traversing a breadth of topics quickly and having flexibility in which topics to discuss will maximise the chances of finding a common interest.
However, the kind of topic change I describe is different, and it often results in conversations growing in depth towards rabbit holes rather than in breadth and flexibility.
Example
Suppose that you are having a conversation about "what it feels like when your worldview is shattered." Your interlocutor is a fellow rationalist and mentions that they read a book promoting climate denial and describes to you what it felt like to almost have their worldview shattered by a professional motivated-skeptic and evidence-cherrypicker. They explain how difficult it is for us mere mortals to notice this black magic being applied to our minds and how easy it is to be deceived by a professional charlatan.
To add to this discussion, you contribute the idea that this feeling is similar going the other way. For example, a profoundly religious person reading a science book on biological evolution will feel similar to how you—a rigorous rationalist—felt reading a book promoting climate denial, anti-vax, or some other pseudoscientific theory.
Both of you agree that evolution is a widely accepted theory with plenty of evidence going for it. Still, your interlocutor decides that they want to show you how much they know about the philosophy of science, so they say, "Playing devil's advocate, evolution is still just a theory." In the back of your mind, you would like to stay on topic, but rationalist verve takes over you, and you engage with all your heart in a fraught debate.
Now, suddenly, you find yourself debating the truth of biological evolution. You're both embroiled in the weeds of the philosophy of science, and other participants in the conversation are becoming visibly uninterested. You are no longer talking about "what it feels like when your worldview is shattered."
The theme is "What it feels like when your worldview is shattered". At least, that is the expressed subject of the conversation. Because in the first example, your interlocutor said their worldview was almost shattered. So isn't it more accurate to say the the subject-matter of the conversation is something like "What it feels like having your worldview threatened/pressured/almost shattered"?
So you start off by past experiences and general examples, in the second paragraph. In the third, as the conversation progresses, and you want to go deeper - you (In line with the Theme) explore in an actual conversation in the present what it feels like to have your worldview threatened/pressured/almost shattered.
At which point you comment that you would like to stay on topic - Which I find odd, as that is exactly what you are doing. You are exploring what it feels like to have your worldview threatened/pressured/ in real time - with on person playing the devils's advocate.
In the fourth paragraf you are trying to mimic pressure by acting out a seemingly scary thematic - namely having your worldview shattered. And if you described what you felt in that exact moment, as this was going on, it would contribute to the theme as far as I can see. On the way to having your worldview shattered, you will just argue and feel (safe, irritated, frustrated, passiv, etc)
At which point, if someone came into the conversation and could actually 'prove' that biological evolution is wrong, and the person was very convincing (Maybe some of the others listening hired a profession to do the job), and you both felt your grip on reality slipping - that would have been another exploration into "What it feels like to have your worldview shattered".
So in the third paragraph I see an opening to talk about actual feelings, in the here and now, with regards to the theme of the conversation, but without the threat of your worldview shattering as your fellow is playing the devils advocate - not actually being one. At least that is what it looks like from here. So wouldn't that be interesting to do? Instead it turns into a debate, and the weeds of philosphy - but what if you had stayed on track, what it feels like? I am curious about that.
Overview
I've observed my interlocutors, and sometimes myself, applying excessive nuance to irrelevant points during discussions. This misplaced nuance derails conversations into rabbit holes and dead ends.
High-Level Description
When I introduce a supporting but tangential idea into a discussion (e.g. a widely accepted scientific theory), my interlocutor latches onto it with excessive nuance at the expense of the salient points. This usually takes the form of nitpicking or questioning the underlying framework of the tangential idea.
This is rarely fruitful because almost never is any participant at the cutting edge of the relevant field. I'm all for rational inquiry and open discourse, but nitpicking mostly comes across as pretentious and unconstructive.
The result is unchecked growth of the conversational stack. We forget to go back down and revisit the original points unless someone cares enough to forcibly steer the conversation back. These discussions end up in rabbit holes, and no one gets anything out of them.
Example
Suppose you are having a conversation about "what it feels like when your worldview is shattered." Your interlocutor is a fellow rationalist who read a book promoting climate denial. They describe what it felt like to almost have their worldview shattered by a professional motivated-skeptic and evidence-cherrypicker. They explain how difficult it is for mere mortals to notice this black magic being applied to our minds and how easy it is to be deceived by a professional charlatan.
You contribute the idea that this feeling is similar going the other way. A profoundly religious person reading a science book on biological evolution will feel similar to how you, a rigorous rationalist, felt reading a book promoting climate denial, anti-vax, or some other pseudoscientific theory.
Both of you agree that evolution is a widely accepted theory with plenty of evidence going for it. Still, your interlocutor decides they want to show you how much they know about the philosophy of science, so they say, "Playing devil's advocate, evolution is still just a theory." In the back of your mind, you would like to stay on topic, but rationalist verve takes over, and you engage with all your heart in a fraught debate.
Suddenly, you find yourself debating the truth of biological evolution. You're both embroiled in the weeds of the philosophy of science, and other participants in the conversation are becoming visibly uninterested. You are no longer talking about "what it feels like when your worldview is shattered."
Conversational Etiquette
Conversation and Social Status
I read The Elephant in the Brain recently, and at one point it talks about human conversation. Hanson and Simler explore why we are so eager to talk even when keeping information to ourselves gives us a competitive advantage.
We're so eager to speak that we have to curb our impulses via the norms of conversational etiquette. If speaking were an act of giving, we would consider it polite for people to "selflessly" monopolize conversations. But it's the opposite. Speaking too much or "hogging the mic" is considered rude, while inviting someone else to take the floor, or asking a dinner guest about one of her hobbies, is considered the epitome of good manners.
Improving conversational etiquette has a high return on investment because we converse with others constantly. Giving others space to talk, listening when others speak, articulating yourself clearly and avoiding nitpicking when inappropriate in context are all valuable skills. These develop naturally for some people but are difficult to cultivate for others. I have found that inviting friends to give me constructive feedback on my conversational style has helped me improve.
I find that there are three broad types of conversationalists:
High-status conversationalists: They invite others to speak. They check if others would like to switch topics, return to a previous topic, or end the conversation so they don't miss their train. When they speak, they are precise and pertinent. They don't need to explain every point exhaustively. They often get invited by others to take center stage, and people are all ears when they speak.
Low-status conversationalists: They treat every point as if they are answering a test, going into excessive detail that is usually irrelevant in context. They are excessively contrarian, even about minor or tangential points, stalling the progress of a conversation. They don't give other people space to talk and don't make an effort to include newcomers. They forcefully change conversation topics at the expense of others when a particular subject doesn't suit them.
Non-conversationalists: They don't like to converse.
Stack Overflow
A conversational stack overflow occurs when the stack gets so large and messy that everyone forgets how they got here. Going back down the stack is an underrated social skill because there is usually at least someone in the conversation who cares about a point that was made earlier.
When Stack Overflow and Nuance are OK
There are conversations where letting things meander and letting the stack grow is perfectly fine. For example, you are having beers next to a campfire, or you explicitly ask other participants if they would like to revisit an earlier point, switch topics, or end the conversation, and they say they are happy to let things flow.
Exploring many topics is also desirable when getting to know someone new. Covering a breadth of topics quickly and having flexibility in which ones to pursue maximizes the chances of finding a common interest.
Rigor is desirable in many contexts: writing an academic paper, reviewing academic work, or engaging in a deliberate debate about a particular topic. Rigor is different from nitpicking. Nitpicking is the application of excessive nuance in order to miss the point, whether intentionally or not, or to demonstrate how much you know about some irrelevant topic.
Concluding Remarks
Constantly shifting conversation topics because of excessive nuance on tangential points is counterproductive in most contexts. Some discussions simply don't call for nuance on particular matters. Hogging the mic to belabor a point is a poor social skill. Getting better at conversation is a meta-skill that compounds across every part of your life, and it is worth the effort to cultivate deliberately.